5 ms·

Unpopular opinion: this should sort of be more common in the US as well. Intent is what matters, if your intent is to express a sincerely held belief in good fa

by _8j50 5y ago

Unpopular opinion: this should sort of be more common in the US as well. Intent is what matters, if your intent is to express a sincerely held belief in good faith there should be no law against that. But if the purpose and demonstrable intent of your speech is to cause offense, harm or bully someone harm someones reputation or any other harmful intended effect against others, it should be appropriately criminalized. For example: If you say "Joe is a liar" and then you are heard saying "I said that to ruin his reputation" it should be criminal. You did not express your belief or view, you merely used speech to cause harm. I am looking you "freedom from religion". Outside of the legal realm, there needs to be a conversation about intent. A lot of socio-political issues can be toned down a lot if you consider the intent and perspective of the other side. For example, a pro-choice person sincerely believes a fetus is not a human yet and a pro-life person sincerely believes it is a human, with thay in mind they are not baby killers or misogynyst oppressors respectively. They both hold sincerely held contradictory views about conception. Regardless what side you are on, consider some or many on the other side do not have malicious intent and are not your enemies but fellow citizens on the same side.

throw_m239339 5y ago
> Unpopular opinion: this should sort of be more common in the US as well. In US the constitution protects citizen speech...from the governemnt. UK doesn't have a constitution. Your opinion is objectively against the US constitution.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > UK doesn't have a constitution. The UK has a constitution, but it isn't a single written document, or even entirely written: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
- _8j50 5y ago
  Yes it is against the first amendment, hence unpopular. Amendments can be repealed and modified.
tasha0663 5y ago
> express a sincerely held belief in good faith That's what Twitter is for? Seriously?
- _8j50 5y ago
  Twitter is a private platform where you can express any belief, even with ill-intent and your actions are judged by biased algorithms and people that are not accountable to any checks and balances of a government that derives its authority from the consent and will of the governed.
pessimizer 5y ago
How will the judge determine sincerity; through ordeal, or straight up torture?
- _8j50 5y ago
  Innocent until proven without reasonable doubt otherwise. If others cannot prove your guilt, you are within your right.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> For example: If you say "Joe is a liar" and then you are heard saying "I said that to ruin his reputation" it should be criminal. That's what slander is. It's already illegal (not sure if it's a felony, though, or just a misdemeanor). Apart from slander, though... strong disagree. You should be able to be offensive. Being offensive is in poor taste, and often is also poor tactics, but it shouldn't be illegal. Best reason why: "When it's illegal to offend, being offended is a weapon." (I stole that from someone here on HN, but I don't have the source handy at the moment.) I do not want to give that power to every busybody and power-tripper with an internet connection.
- _8j50 5y ago
  Slander is civil law not criminal. You should be able to cause offense so long as your intent is not only to cause offense. If your words match your belief it should be protected speech. What I am saying is for when people say offensive things for the sake of causing harm to others.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    In some jurisdictions, slander/defamation can be criminal.
JetAlone 5y ago
You can't create an "intent inquisition" court system to fix the problems surrounding speech, offense, violence etc. There is no political solution. The sincerity with which we hold beliefs is what motivates the desire to harm those who hold contradictory beliefs, whether acted on or not. Humans naturally crave life in a civilization where their personal "god/pantheon" of core values is the unifying social glue. That kind of life seems to make sense as one where a person can live each day with only moderate difficulty, work and acquire enduring wealth, be part of a family that sticks together. When they feel like that is within reach, or under threat, they will game any system or flout its rules to fight each other.
- _8j50 5y ago
  We already have such a system. If you kill someone and it was an accident it is manslaughter. If you planned it ahead of time it is murder. To the most part, intent is illegal not actions. Provable intent with the assumption that you are innocent until reasonably proven otherwise.
  - JetAlone 5y ago
    I'm not debating whether or not we have tried to make such a system or have one, I am saying more of it will not solve our current problems surrounding speech, offense, violence, etc.
    - _8j50 5y ago
      Your goal is different than mine. My goal is justice not solutions. For a person who did wrong to pay for their intent and for all innocents to remain so. I am saying like most other things we half-assef freedom of speech and expression without consideration of intent and the current constitution-worshipping culture only does harm against the goals of justice,peace and prosperity.
      - JetAlone 5y ago
        I'm convinced that true justice, prosperity and peace are out of our collective reach right now. My goal is to survive and be honest in a world where we only have shadows (or, too often, parodies) of these things. I am not necessarily opposed to you approaching your stated goals, though I think everyone who tries will fail unless we can create good relationships that transcend things like legal systems. I think that might also be what you are actually hungry for, since you cite concern about "constitution worship". I think the constitution and traditional law codes like it could be a relatively effective rule of law if it were actually followed. Probably more effective than whatever new thing we can make up today with our collective minds largely strung out with fear, stress, anger and mental illness.

by _8j50 5y ago

throw_m239339 5y ago

> Unpopular opinion: this should sort of be more common in the US as well. In US the constitution protects citizen speech...from the governemnt. UK doesn't have a constitution. Your opinion is objectively against the US constitution.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> UK doesn't have a constitution. The UK has a constitution, but it isn't a single written document, or even entirely written: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_K...
_8j50 5y ago
Yes it is against the first amendment, hence unpopular. Amendments can be repealed and modified.

tasha0663 5y ago

> express a sincerely held belief in good faith That's what Twitter is for? Seriously?

_8j50 5y ago
Twitter is a private platform where you can express any belief, even with ill-intent and your actions are judged by biased algorithms and people that are not accountable to any checks and balances of a government that derives its authority from the consent and will of the governed.

pessimizer 5y ago

How will the judge determine sincerity; through ordeal, or straight up torture?

_8j50 5y ago
Innocent until proven without reasonable doubt otherwise. If others cannot prove your guilt, you are within your right.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> For example: If you say "Joe is a liar" and then you are heard saying "I said that to ruin his reputation" it should be criminal. That's what slander is. It's already illegal (not sure if it's a felony, though, or just a misdemeanor). Apart from slander, though... strong disagree. You should be able to be offensive. Being offensive is in poor taste, and often is also poor tactics, but it shouldn't be illegal. Best reason why: "When it's illegal to offend, being offended is a weapon." (I stole that from someone here on HN, but I don't have the source handy at the moment.) I do not want to give that power to every busybody and power-tripper with an internet connection.

_8j50 5y ago
Slander is civil law not criminal. You should be able to cause offense so long as your intent is not only to cause offense. If your words match your belief it should be protected speech. What I am saying is for when people say offensive things for the sake of causing harm to others.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  In some jurisdictions, slander/defamation can be criminal.

JetAlone 5y ago

You can't create an "intent inquisition" court system to fix the problems surrounding speech, offense, violence etc. There is no political solution. The sincerity with which we hold beliefs is what motivates the desire to harm those who hold contradictory beliefs, whether acted on or not. Humans naturally crave life in a civilization where their personal "god/pantheon" of core values is the unifying social glue. That kind of life seems to make sense as one where a person can live each day with only moderate difficulty, work and acquire enduring wealth, be part of a family that sticks together. When they feel like that is within reach, or under threat, they will game any system or flout its rules to fight each other.

_8j50 5y ago
We already have such a system. If you kill someone and it was an accident it is manslaughter. If you planned it ahead of time it is murder. To the most part, intent is illegal not actions. Provable intent with the assumption that you are innocent until reasonably proven otherwise.
- JetAlone 5y ago
  I'm not debating whether or not we have tried to make such a system or have one, I am saying more of it will not solve our current problems surrounding speech, offense, violence, etc.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    Your goal is different than mine. My goal is justice not solutions. For a person who did wrong to pay for their intent and for all innocents to remain so. I am saying like most other things we half-assef freedom of speech and expression without consideration of intent and the current constitution-worshipping culture only does harm against the goals of justice,peace and prosperity.
    - JetAlone 5y ago
      I'm convinced that true justice, prosperity and peace are out of our collective reach right now. My goal is to survive and be honest in a world where we only have shadows (or, too often, parodies) of these things. I am not necessarily opposed to you approaching your stated goals, though I think everyone who tries will fail unless we can create good relationships that transcend things like legal systems. I think that might also be what you are actually hungry for, since you cite concern about "constitution worship". I think the constitution and traditional law codes like it could be a relatively effective rule of law if it were actually followed. Probably more effective than whatever new thing we can make up today with our collective minds largely strung out with fear, stress, anger and mental illness.