3 ms·

How is it wrong? If you are a public figure getting bombarded with death wishes/threats or vile comments about how someone will kill and mutilate your family wh

How is it wrong? If you are a public figure getting bombarded with death wishes/threats or vile comments about how someone will kill and mutilate your family what are you supposed to do just take it? There has to be consequences for people like that, like there are in real life.

thekingofrome 4y ago
The issue, as the article says, is that the law doesn't define what an insult is. That means that a death threat or saying "you're stupid" could potentially both be prosecuted under this law.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  That stems from the fact that any definition of an insult will be either incomplete or incorrect.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    Not saying you're wrong, but why is this a fact? Surely for a legal purpose you could make a pretty solid definition. If you want it to be fully black and white, you could enumerate all 'banned' insults.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      > why is this a fact? It is a rhetorical flourish, but my gut says that language is complex enough to craft statements that both meet the legal definition but aren't insults, or are insulting but don't meet the legal definition. I'm also discounting circular definitions like insults are statements that are insulting which are tautological, but don't reveal any extra clarity. > you could enumerate all 'banned' insults I'd argue that this is not possible due to the set of insults having at least countably infinite cardinality.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        It's irrelevant if the set of possible insults has infinite cardinality since we only care about the actual insults litigated on. If there is an insult which isn't in the list, the courts could decide if it fits their definition and through precedent it would be implicitly added to the list. It's very relevant if you want a 'perfect' definition/insult list, but noone in policy land aims for perfection because they live in the real world.
rowanG077 4y ago
A death threat is clearly different from an insult. And I'm not sure why you lump death wishes in with threat. Those are also clearly different.
- hulitu 4y ago
  No they are not. At least not in the so called civilised countries.
  - galleywest200 4y ago
    A threat of action is different than mean words. A threat of action is a violent act, where as saying mean things is just rude. A threat of action is a crime in multiple countries.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Death threats are different, but insults can also lead to death (there's already an history of suicide as a direct result of sustained bullying) In a distorted way, insults can have more critical consequences that threats.
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>“At the moment, even if someone calls the leader of Japan an idiot, then maybe under the revised law that could be classed as an insult,” Cho said. You think someone who calls their leader an idiot should be jailed?
- hulitu 4y ago
  " MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.' CROWD: Oooooh! OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He's said it again!"

thekingofrome 4y ago

The issue, as the article says, is that the law doesn't define what an insult is. That means that a death threat or saying "you're stupid" could potentially both be prosecuted under this law.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
That stems from the fact that any definition of an insult will be either incomplete or incorrect.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Not saying you're wrong, but why is this a fact? Surely for a legal purpose you could make a pretty solid definition. If you want it to be fully black and white, you could enumerate all 'banned' insults.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    > why is this a fact? It is a rhetorical flourish, but my gut says that language is complex enough to craft statements that both meet the legal definition but aren't insults, or are insulting but don't meet the legal definition. I'm also discounting circular definitions like insults are statements that are insulting which are tautological, but don't reveal any extra clarity. > you could enumerate all 'banned' insults I'd argue that this is not possible due to the set of insults having at least countably infinite cardinality.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      It's irrelevant if the set of possible insults has infinite cardinality since we only care about the actual insults litigated on. If there is an insult which isn't in the list, the courts could decide if it fits their definition and through precedent it would be implicitly added to the list. It's very relevant if you want a 'perfect' definition/insult list, but noone in policy land aims for perfection because they live in the real world.

rowanG077 4y ago

A death threat is clearly different from an insult. And I'm not sure why you lump death wishes in with threat. Those are also clearly different.

hulitu 4y ago
No they are not. At least not in the so called civilised countries.
- galleywest200 4y ago
  A threat of action is different than mean words. A threat of action is a violent act, where as saying mean things is just rude. A threat of action is a crime in multiple countries.
makeitdouble 4y ago
Death threats are different, but insults can also lead to death (there's already an history of suicide as a direct result of sustained bullying) In a distorted way, insults can have more critical consequences that threats.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>“At the moment, even if someone calls the leader of Japan an idiot, then maybe under the revised law that could be classed as an insult,” Cho said. You think someone who calls their leader an idiot should be jailed?

hulitu 4y ago
" MATTHIAS: Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.' CROWD: Oooooh! OFFICIAL: Blasphemy! He's said it again!"