11 ms·
Japan passes revised penal code with harsher punishment for cyberbullying
- boredumb 4y agoHopefully only used to shut up these bad guys with the wrong opinions from fuming up my internet with infuriating rhetoric that I would never condone and not us good guys with the right opinions that exist between my keyboard and chair.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rlv-dan 4y agoExactly. Now I'm going to write down all the correct options so there is no more arguing on what is right or wrong. Then no one will ever need to feel offended again!
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y agoIt's crazy to me reading all these comments applying the American cultural, historical and legal context to discuss a Japanese law about bullying. You can't translate your usual talking points about American politics 1:1 to another country.
- tchalla 4y agoI have stopped being surprised by this on the Internet. It’s nauseating and very off putting. I’m amazed how people can’t think there are other ways of dealing with the same issue.
- shadowgovt 4y agoIt crosses the line into chilling for me when I stop and ponder how many of the people who comment on topics like this are directly or indirectly responsible for framing policy at multinational corporations building global-scope communications infrastructures.
- alephnan 4y agoThis crowd has a cartoonish conception of Japan in particular.
- akomtu 4y agoHow are they going to verify identity of the supposed "cyberbully"? Judge: "Here is a screenshot of an internet page where you use offensive language." Defendant: "But your honor, here is a screenshot with your name on it where you call this process fabricated."
- googlryas 4y agoCan you not think of better ways to investigate this, beyond screenshots?
- bamboozled 4y agoI guess this is the scary part. Everyone is potentially guilty ?
- kwatsonafter 4y agoThis obviously warrants a cloud-based, trustless Blockchain system to verify identities on the Japanese Internet. Y-Combinator 2023 class here we come!
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago"we are mass spying on everyone to stop hate speech on forums and games.
- dehrmann 4y agoAt least in the US, you'd have to subpoena platforms for the actual activity logs.
- akomtu 4y agoActivity logs aren't worth much unless the offender bothered to properly identify himself with a scan of passport and a notary verified signature (because a scan of passport can be stolen).
- dehrmann 4y agoUsing a phone number for 2FA will probably get you past reasonable doubt. Or an IP address tied to your house.
- kwatsonafter 4y agoAs I get older I'm more in favor of this kind of thing. Freedom of speech ought (here I go; a terrible Kantian asserting an, "ought") to apply to political speech. Using FoS as a defense against aimlessly attacking others seems to undermine what is a basic expectation of civility (ie. not being made to feel unsafe) in advanced societies. I feel like there's a class of people that would gladly slaughter cows in front of Hindus and intimidate gay people under the guise of, "sociopolitical expression" but if we let this go on it could get to a point where, "talking" becomes, "taking deliberate actions to hurt or disenfranchise others" which is a slippery slope. tl;dr-- Good for Japan. Politeness rules. It's people that have served in wars that understand this well.
- pilgrimfff 4y agoJapanese police have a reputation of "interrogating" you until you confess, regardless of innocence. That's the only way to hit their 99% conviction rate. The last thing they need is another bludgeon.
- soraminazuki 4y agoForced confessions are unfortunately not unique to Japan [1]. Police will behave like that when you reward them based on the number of convictions and don't hold them accountable for screwing over innocent people. Still sucks, though. [1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4
- ALittleLight 4y agoI think this conviction rate statistic is out of context. In the US the conviction rate is 93% and, if the US measured conviction rate the way the Japanese do, it would be 99.8%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate So, maybe, yes, the Japanese police interrogate you until you confess - I don't know. But other police must do effectively similar things.
- Jasper_ 4y agoThese rules typically get applied in ways that advantage the already privileged. e.g. privileged people can say mean stuff online to those under them, but those without such power will go to jail for trying to expose the crimes or bad behaviors of those they work for. Basically, Masayoshi Son won't ever go to jail (he's too important to go to jail), but someone trying to expose his financial crimes will.
- ImPleadThe5th 4y ago
- bobthe3 4y agoPersonally I feel this is law is a great step forward to stop hate speech and other forms of severe harassment but the thought that if you happen to “rage” on someone mid game and receive jail time for that scares me. Society is becoming more and more closed off in a way where rather then freedom of expression you have to limit ur speech to not offend another.
- donkarma 4y ago
- alex_sf 4y agoWhat is 'hate speech'?
- whatshisface 4y agoSpeech I hate.
- labster 4y agoMe too, man, me too.
- robin_reala 4y agoIf you want a legal definition you’ll need to specify a country.
- alex_sf 4y agoThe US and Turkmenistan would be good starts.
- danuker 4y agoI am not too certain. But here are some examples (NSFW). https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search Looks like they involve discrimination (on race or religion or such). But Japan's new law is more general.
- causality0 4y agoResults this are why I vigorously defend even the outer fringes of free speech. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
- matt321 4y agoThis law has good intentions but will be used to imprison political rivals and online gamers. The first link in the chain is forged, captain, get ready for a wild ride.
- ceres 4y agoWait why would they go specifically after gamers?
- showdeadtest111 4y agoBecause gamers are the most oppressed minority.
- theplumber 4y agoNote to myself: Remember to tick underrepresented minority on job aplications.
- bobkazamakis 4y agowe live in a society
- cyberlurker 4y agoI don't think the reasons are good, but gamers often trash talk and bully each other in game. For example, Riot needed to ban people from typing “kys” in League of Legends because it means “kill your self” and they were worried about it. (Whether that is because they care about the players or their liability or both is not for me to decide)
- dehrmann 4y agoI wonder if rules like this level-up a country's skill in sarcasm and irony.
- mjburgess 4y agoThat dry sense of british humour mostly arises from the fairly extreme forms of censorship in Britain until the 70s.
- fatherzine 4y agoSo and so. One may observe an increase in dark humor, but mostly the pareidolia levels increase. People start seeing the illegal thoughts all around them, whether anybody explicitly tries to elicit that response or not.
- 999900000999 4y agoThis would suggest the only winning move is not to play. Aside from this, I haven't used Social Media/ Online Dating in about 5 years. For example, if someone posts something like "Where can I find an apartment in LA , my income is only 35k a year". And I respond with " Your not going to make it here, you should move somewhere cheaper." That can be interupted as an insult. On the other end of the spectrum, back when I used social media heavily I'd get called slurs all the time. Never been called a slur in real life. It was very bad for me emotionally. I'm much happier, and meet great people, social media free. I'd rather place restrictions on social media companies, many of which encourage negativity vs passing the blame to end users.
- cyberlurker 4y agoAgreed, let the platforms face fines and regulation, not jail the end users. Although some online bullying is much more blatant than your example.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoI guess the devil is in the details, but on a cursory glance this sounds more akin to American libel laws than "no insults ever" > Insult charges apply when an individual insults another in public to damage their social reputation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- simion314 4y agoIMO if you say X in real life and a judge says you to to jail then why would it be different if you said X on the internet or on the phone? Seems reasonable that your free speech has consequences if you cause harm even if your speech was on the TV,internet or a news paper. Regular laws should apply for all speech.
- 999900000999 4y agoIt's not exactly documented if someone insults me at a bar. "Cause harm" is a heavily subjective term. If I say you're wasting your time learning Haskell since you'll never find a job, and this triggers a mental breakdowns in you, can you sue me ? I'd argue the nature of social media actually encourages people to be meaner. If I'm a jerk at my local bar I can be easily banned. If I'm a jerk on Facebook or a scammer on Tinder I can create a new account in 20 seconds.
- onion2k 4y agoI think the appropriate aphorism here is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." No doubt the Japanese government believe that this law is for extreme cases where someone sends thousands of awful messages, or where a mob drives someone to suicide, but this will end up being used to prosecute some poor 14 year old kid who calls someone else a bad name in Call of Duty. Without strict limitations in laws they're always used to overreach. It's a shame there isn't a technically-minded group that governments can talk to for advice about this sort of thing.
- makeitdouble 4y agoI’m curious about what other path do you see for the authorities to effectively deal with sever online abuse that results in irl damage. Do you see a country that successfully navigated the issue ? To note, under this law the charges still need to go to a judge to decide how heavy any of it should be.
- onion2k 4y agoI’m curious about what other path do you see for the authorities to effectively deal with sever online abuse that results in irl damage. That's simple. There needs to be a test for what constitutes IRL damage written in to the law. As far as I know no country has done that.
- makeitdouble 4y agoI kinda get what you mean, but that would result in a law that only punishes once the victim has irreparable damage (~ dead) I’d see it akin to only punishing murders and let go attempts and battering because its too “fuzzy”.
- shadowgovt 4y ago> "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I agree. For example, we created a global flat bidirectional un-gatekept communications network with the altruistic and high-minded belief that if allowed to communicate without the material trappings of class, race, gender, and the various other things that separate us in "meatspace," we'd create a techno-utopia of our best selves through rational discourse and the clear-eyed sharing of different points of view. Instead, suicides among teens exposed to this firehose are spiking. We should address that.
- san_dimitri 4y agoI am surprised how much less discussion takes place about cyberbullying and the deaths caused by it. I agree with freedom of speech but if it violates someones right to exist then shouldn't the culprits be punished? If not punished atleast have a legal process to discuss/debate it in the court of law? Thoughts?
- nness 4y agoI am in agreement. Speech can cause harm, and like all things that can be used to cause harm to another person, should have safe-guards in place to prevent that harm.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoPeople dying is a small price to pay for free speech. Of course, if everyone died and the last person was able to speak freely, it would be worth it. Everything else is trading safety for liberty. Slippery slopes of free speech crackdowns inevitably lead to loss of liberty. Leave if you don't like it. Absolutism in free speech is the only justifiable position. Welcome to debate.
- rnd0 4y ago>People dying is a small price to pay for free speech. Easy to say when it's not you doing the dying.
- djkoolaide 4y agoGenuinely can't tell whether this is irony or frightening sincerity.
- kelseyfrog 4y agoedited for clarity.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThat's probably the most absolutist statement of the concept I've ever seen; my respect for posting it plainly. In this form, it's easy to show the flaw in this line of thought, because it concludes with literal extermination of the species ("the last person" implies no further people). And if a right leads to extermination of the species, what good was that right in the first place? All rights have a balance point. Most hinge on where the rights of others begin. The freedom of speech (in the form of criticism of power) has massive value to the formation and maintenance of a free society, which is why some nations protect it so zealously. But even those nations have recognized its constraint in various contexts. The position described here is a fringe position and should remain one to maximize the value of free speech.
- theplumber 4y agoAm I the only one who thinks that once you expose yourself to the public you should be prepared to take some "insults"? Just like celebrities you become a "mini celebrity" so you can expect some online harrasment. Not to mention that you can always close your account/make it private.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 4y agoWould you be okay with me following you when you walk on the street, shouting insults into your face? Why not, you're exposing yourself in public!
- theplumber 4y agoOnline I can close the tab/game or just block you. Why playing a video game should be equal to attending a catholic course? If I don't like the comments recieved on my twitter/fb/instagram account I can just disable the comments.
- makeitdouble 4y agoWe wouldn’t expect well known kids at school to accept random verbal abuse all day every day, and ask them to just move school if they get tired of it. Why should it be different online ?
- shitlord 4y agoThe difference is that you can always close the game or play a different game. I don't see why the government needs to get involved when individual companies already have a financial incentive to ban toxic players.
- makeitdouble 4y ago> financial incentive to ban toxic players. Aren't major SNS platforms financially succeeding by promoting toxic users that drive engagement numbers through the roof ?
- zaik 4y agoIf I read this correctly, no new law has been passed. They made punishment harsher for insults (侮辱罪) an existing crime which is not specific to cyberbullying.
- dfxm12 4y agoCorrect. They didn't even increase a minimum punishment, they just expanded the possible punishments, so you could still get the old, light, punishment. Also of note, these changes will be reviewed after three years to see if they are too harsh.
- bamboozled 4y agoWhat is the point of that though ? They’re either too harsh or not? How do you find out in three years ? There is also an election in three years. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not a coincidence?
- bejelentkezni 4y ago
- Manuel_D 4y agoLaws like this sound well-intentioned enough but are rampant for abuse and unequal application. If someone is outraged at some controversial policy or statement, how does that play out? Especially when the people in question are public figures: > professional wrestler Hana Kimura died in 2020 at age 22 following cyberbullying on social media over her remarks on a reality romance show that she had been part of. Imagine if someone was locked up for a year because they said mean things about Tucker Carlson. This makes more sense if it's narrowly defined to encompass people without public presence, but it seems to include public figures as well.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- alephnan 4y ago> Laws like this sound well-intentioned enough but are rampant for abuse and unequal application It already has and is frequently discussed on r/japanlife.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- unknownus3r 4y agoare you suggesting that they could bully others with the law?
- MathYouF 4y agoMaybe people shouldn't say evil and hateful things about anyone, no matter how bad they are, because it makes the entire culture of public discourse more toxic. Americans seem to have very little reverence for the quality and civility of public discourse in general anymore, and often say "the other side is worse" or "I'm intolerant of intolerance" as their justification for personally contributing to the normalization of uncivil ways of speaking. Japan doesn't seem to have these problems with people culturally defecting from civility even when they disagree, and I believe their willingness to not tolerate it to any degree is what keeps the rest of society defecting to low quality behavior patterns. There are many morally self righteous individuals who think they are doing the right thing and don't realise their counterparts they spew (self righteously) hatred towards are the exact same as them. I think both groups should receive censure for valuing their personal crusades over the quality of stability and civility of society the rest of us value; who have more nuanced and humble opinions of our own self righteousness. Really glad there's another country that agrees with me!
- valar_m 4y agoMark my words, this will be used to punish people for ideas that those in power don't like. Hate speech laws are dangerous because hate groups are far more dangerous when their true motives are hidden from view.
- krapp 4y agoSo you're claiming hate groups are less dangerous when they are allowed to recruit openly and operate in plain sight?
- valar_m 4y agoYes. It's important for people like David Duke to let us know what he truly is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Louisiana_gubernatorial_e... "Vote For The Crook: It's Important."
- krapp 4y agoBut that doesn't support the thesis that the KKK would be less dangerous if they were allowed to burn crosses on every lawn and, say, given a free hour on television every day. We can know what these groups are, who their members are and what they believe while also limiting their ability to spread those harmful beliefs.
- valar_m 4y agoThis is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said, and I suspect you know that. Why on earth would they be able to burn crosses on anyone's lawn? Hate speech is currently protected by the First Amendment by decades of well-settled jurisprudence. Where are they permitted to burn crosses on people's lawns? And please provide a link to where the KKK is given a free hour of television every day. > We can know what these groups are, who their members are and what they believe while also limiting their ability to spread those harmful beliefs. How would we know if they aren't allowed to publicly say what their beliefs are? I submit that we know that only because their hate speech is protected.
- kazinator 4y agoSlander and libel laws are nothing new, though. They have those in the USA and elsewhere. According to this web page: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/criminal-libel-statutes-state-by-state/ https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center... numerous states in the USA have punishments for slander/libel of up to a year in prison or fines of around a thousand bucks or more. The definition of the wrongdoing varies. For instance Oklahoma's wording says "false or malicious", which implies that the behavior is libel even the representations made are true, provided they can be deemed to be malicious.
- squarefoot 4y agoAbuse coming in 3..2..1... As with every law involving limitation of free speech, it will be easily abused by powerful people against less powerful people. Also, it appears they already had a perfectly legit punishment: " ... The penalty applied to the crime under the pre-revised law was "detention for less than 30 days" or "a fine of less than 10,000 yen (roughly $74)" -- the lightest punishments under the Penal Code. ..." Now I don't know anything about prisons in Japan, but I'm 100% sure I wouldn't want to spend 29 days in any jail for any reason. Wouldn't ensuring any abuser gets that 4 weeks in jail be already a hell of a deterrence? Note that I'm totally in favor of hard fighting bullism of any kind, but not in a way that could be easily abused; serving jail for "insults to damage one's reputation" seems just too broad and a very handy tool to hit journalists, political adversaries and freedom of information in general.
- alephnan 4y ago> Now I don't know anything about prisons in Japan, but I'm 100% sure I wouldn't want to spend 29 days in any jail for any reason. Wouldn't ensuring any abuser gets that 4 weeks in jail be already a hell of a deterrence? Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. For starters, there are no miranda rights.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dfxm12 4y agoHana Kimura's mother, Kyoko Kimura (also a pro wrestler), recently had a fundraiser wrestling show to help her with legal fees associated with suing the TV station the show aired on. Kyoko even came out of retirement for a match! Hopefully this can give her a sliver of peace of mind over the situation. The show was called "Hana bagus!" [0]. was always a fan of Kyoko, and even early in her career, Hana was already a better wrestler overall. It's sad to lose such talent so young... 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Kimura_Memorial_Show_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Kimura_Memorial_Show_2
- unknownus3r 4y agoBullying is a part of reality. I see people bully others in offices for every company I have ever worked with and at, whether it’s passive aggressive slights, framing, etc. You’re never going to get rid of it entirely because humans are an inherently hierarchical species and bullying is a method of establishing hierarchy and dominance. While trying to punish going over board may be a good thing, this whole “let’s all hold hands and sing cumbiyah” and get rid of bullying is nonsense. No two people are the same, if one is smarter or stronger than the other, the lesser competitor will use tactics like bullying or social engineering to try to establish dominance. Strong competitors use it as well to disinvite challengers. We reward this at every level of our society so to pretend that it’s evil in children is really preparing them for being dysfunctional when they become adults. The true solution to getting bullied is to: - fight back ferociously - get them to bully someone else - take it and be a loser I got bullied a lot when I was a kid, I had to learn to be tough
- _zzaw 4y agoWrong. Pretending bullying isn’t evil in kids, as you just did, is what trains them to be dysfunctional adults.
- InefficientRed 4y ago> I see people bully others in offices for every company I have ever worked with and at IME bullying -- actual bullying, not power contests or nasty office politics -- isn't even remotely normal in office settings. > The true solution to getting bullied is to... ...ignore it if isn't serious or tell an adult if it is serious. > fight back ferociously Anything physical is de facto serious and should be dealt with via adults and not between children; at least in my bubble, physical violence between school-aged children is rare and taken very seriously. A bully physically harming other children would receive a serious punishment, the parents would be in the loop, and the school counselor would be heavily involved with that child for the remainder of the school year. Anything systemic and sustained, or targeting immutable attributes, is also de facto serious. It's possible that things are different in your social environments, but "bullying" as I understood it as a kid is no longer even remotely socially acceptable.
- toma_caliente 4y agoThis is a well meaning law but it is very important to know that defamation is very broad in Japan unlike the US and can essentially mean "anything that can cause negative reputation." If a CEO cheats on his wife and I publicly out his affair, I can be sued for defamation in Japan.
- _8j50 4y ago99% conviction rate. Nice law but practically, if you are accused you will get convicted. I don't know why they make a mockery of their judicial system. Either a ton of bad guys don't get tried or a ton of innocent people are getting convicted.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tzs 4y ago> Either a ton of bad guys don't get tried or a ton of innocent people are getting convicted. You missed a possibility. Maybe they put in sufficient effort during investigation and when deciding whether to prosecute to weed out all the innocent people then and build good cases against the actual bad guys. Very high conviction rights are symptoms of both puppet criminal justice systems that just convict whoever the state wants convicted and of criminal justice systems that only convict actual bad guys and do a good job of getting wrongly or mistakenly accused innocent people out of the system quickly. You need to look deeper to figure out which kind you are dealing with. It is when a criminal justice system has a low conviction rate that you can be sure something is wrong.
- _8j50 4y agoNot 99% good. It's like Kim Jong Il winning 100% votes because he is that popular! The police and prosecutors must essentially be judges before the real judges who simply rubber stamp. Any lawyer would tell you a jury trial (if they have those) is 50/50 conviction rate and judges being human will have some error rate like there is a stat about judges in general convicting people more before lunch or at the end of the day when they are tired. You can't be that good consistently without something being done wrong, not with multiple human decision layers.
- umvi 4y agoIIRC it is a crime to defame someone in Japan, even if what you say is completely true. I.e. you could get in trouble with the law if you expose a lying CEO because the act of doing so defamed him, which is a crime. So clearly Japan values different things than America.
- auganov 4y agoMost comments seem to be assuming Europe-style hate speech laws that prosecute victimless crimes. But this looks like stronger criminal libel and harassment laws. Some places may not have criminal libel, but pretty sure everyone prosecutes harassment at some point.
- incomingpain 4y agoOn the good intentions side, treating others with respect should be a standard. Theoretically you never ever have to worry about violating this rule. In reality, this will be abused to high heaven to punish political opponents. They were already doing this, but it will now become worse. I find it quite interesting to see Japan's government cause the multi-decade crisis they are in. Instead of fixing the crisis they continue to make terrible decisions that only serve to harm themselves further. Yet I fully support their actions, it's their choice.