4 ms·

Laws like this sound well-intentioned enough but are rampant for abuse and unequal application. If someone is outraged at some controversial policy or statement

Laws 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 ago
are you suggesting that they could bully others with the law?
MathYouF 4y ago
Maybe 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!
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  This is exactly the mentality I'm afraid of. The worst censors are the ones that don't realize that they're being censorious, they think they're just promoting civility. What happens when, say, someone says that disapproval of natal males competing in women's sports is a violation of civility? What happens when someone claims support for termination of a pregnancy is violation of civility? The issue is that people have widely varied - and often conflicting - ideas of "civility".
  - MathYouF 4y ago
    I think the fact that Americans have trouble understanding how one could express the full range of political ideology while still remaining civil and not bullying each other is part of the problem. One can express any proposal for legislative or judicial course of action without demeaning the inherent humanity of another and resorting to profanity, lewdness,and hatred. Learning to express opinions in this way can help contribute to us recognizing ways to solve our mutual problems as a society,ans avoid people feeling so dehumanised that they harm themselves or others. I do appreciate your concern though for preserving our ability to disagree and express any political belief without censure.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      And again, what happens when people claim that a certain political view inherently demeans humanity of another? This is already the case: people already proclaim that some political views are inherently dehumanizing. Invariably, those in power will enforce these restrictions against their opponents to their own benefit.
      - MathYouF 4y ago
        Well, we could at least start with having people not use profanity, or tell each other to kill themselves. I admit though I can't think of a good way to legislate the nuances of someone expressing an opinion that one ought not to be able to compete in sports of a gender they believe they belong to, without making them feel they are being dehumanized. ---------- On the subject of what led to this law, my girlfriend and I were avid watchers of the show Terrace House as the events that led to this person's death unfolded. The girl had been quite rude to a foreigner on the show. This was considered a huge disgrace to the nation of Japan, to have one of their own act so meanly to another, especially on as international of a platform as Netflix, especially to someone from what is considered a partner country, like the U. S.. This led to social ostracization where many Japanese were (civilly) telling her that she was no longer respected in general society, and questioning the extent of her ability to behave with civility. I believe this (civilly said) cultural censure for her imopliteness likely contributed more to her feelings of worthlessness than any truly hateful and ignorant things said to her. Or maybe because she grew up in Japan she was just not emotionally prepared for hearing some of the hateful things people can say on the Internet (this is the public narrative). Either way, it's a tricky situation, and many in Japan felt she was actually the one who began the degregation of civility with her behavior on the show, but none the less the resulting way people spoke to her was also not considered acceptable. How can one balance expressing the idea that she brought shame to the nation while also not making her feel dehumainzed? I don't know. But I'm quite sure in the minds of the Japanese who wrote this law, the main thing they want to avoid is people telling others to kill themselves directly or cursing at them, rather than avoiding expressing judgemental ideas on one's behavior, which is common enough in Japanese society, to be subtly hinting at one disapproving of the behavior of others, while remaining civil.
dfxm12 4y ago
You really don't have to make up a guy/situation to be mad about. This also isn't really a new law, just different possible penalties for an existing law plus a longer statue of limitations, so if your theoretical situation happened, you can go back and see how it played out. Are the new possible penalties too harsh? Well, there is even a built in review process for that: Due to concerns expressed during the Diet deliberation process that tougher laws could curb freedom of expression, the revised law requires examination by an expert panel three years after its enforcement.

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 ago

are you suggesting that they could bully others with the law?

MathYouF 4y ago

Maybe 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!

Manuel_D 4y ago
This is exactly the mentality I'm afraid of. The worst censors are the ones that don't realize that they're being censorious, they think they're just promoting civility. What happens when, say, someone says that disapproval of natal males competing in women's sports is a violation of civility? What happens when someone claims support for termination of a pregnancy is violation of civility? The issue is that people have widely varied - and often conflicting - ideas of "civility".
- MathYouF 4y ago
  I think the fact that Americans have trouble understanding how one could express the full range of political ideology while still remaining civil and not bullying each other is part of the problem. One can express any proposal for legislative or judicial course of action without demeaning the inherent humanity of another and resorting to profanity, lewdness,and hatred. Learning to express opinions in this way can help contribute to us recognizing ways to solve our mutual problems as a society,ans avoid people feeling so dehumanised that they harm themselves or others. I do appreciate your concern though for preserving our ability to disagree and express any political belief without censure.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    And again, what happens when people claim that a certain political view inherently demeans humanity of another? This is already the case: people already proclaim that some political views are inherently dehumanizing. Invariably, those in power will enforce these restrictions against their opponents to their own benefit.
    - MathYouF 4y ago
      Well, we could at least start with having people not use profanity, or tell each other to kill themselves. I admit though I can't think of a good way to legislate the nuances of someone expressing an opinion that one ought not to be able to compete in sports of a gender they believe they belong to, without making them feel they are being dehumanized. ---------- On the subject of what led to this law, my girlfriend and I were avid watchers of the show Terrace House as the events that led to this person's death unfolded. The girl had been quite rude to a foreigner on the show. This was considered a huge disgrace to the nation of Japan, to have one of their own act so meanly to another, especially on as international of a platform as Netflix, especially to someone from what is considered a partner country, like the U. S.. This led to social ostracization where many Japanese were (civilly) telling her that she was no longer respected in general society, and questioning the extent of her ability to behave with civility. I believe this (civilly said) cultural censure for her imopliteness likely contributed more to her feelings of worthlessness than any truly hateful and ignorant things said to her. Or maybe because she grew up in Japan she was just not emotionally prepared for hearing some of the hateful things people can say on the Internet (this is the public narrative). Either way, it's a tricky situation, and many in Japan felt she was actually the one who began the degregation of civility with her behavior on the show, but none the less the resulting way people spoke to her was also not considered acceptable. How can one balance expressing the idea that she brought shame to the nation while also not making her feel dehumainzed? I don't know. But I'm quite sure in the minds of the Japanese who wrote this law, the main thing they want to avoid is people telling others to kill themselves directly or cursing at them, rather than avoiding expressing judgemental ideas on one's behavior, which is common enough in Japanese society, to be subtly hinting at one disapproving of the behavior of others, while remaining civil.

dfxm12 4y ago

You really don't have to make up a guy/situation to be mad about. This also isn't really a new law, just different possible penalties for an existing law plus a longer statue of limitations, so if your theoretical situation happened, you can go back and see how it played out. Are the new possible penalties too harsh? Well, there is even a built in review process for that: Due to concerns expressed during the Diet deliberation process that tougher laws could curb freedom of expression, the revised law requires examination by an expert panel three years after its enforcement.