7 ms·

That should not be a criminal offence.

by zirgs 3y ago

gdprrrr 3y ago
Insulting is already a criminal offence, so it makes sense.
indigo945 3y ago
Intentionally insulting someone already is a crime under German law, so the only real question is why deadnaming is not already covered? And these kinds of laws also exist in more extreme "free-speech" countries like the United States (where the guarantee of free speech doesn't cover, for example, libel).
- Chris2048 3y ago
  libel and "insulting someone" in the sense of using slurs of defamatory remarks aren't obviously the same thing as referring to them by a previous name. I'd be very surprised if the German law (if actually policed) expands to anything an individual might be insulted by, especially if the offense is one of self image.
- Veserv 3y ago
  Not to say that the US is a country of unrestricted free speech, but the standard of libel/slander is extremely strict in the US relative to most other countries. You must make intentionally untrue statements with the intent to harm that causes harm. The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected. If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected. If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected. If no harm occurred, even if you tried to cause harm, you are protected. The standard is extremely hard to reach, possibly even too hard, and it is clearly qualitatively different than most other countries.
  - less_less 3y ago
    I agree that the US is different from most countries in terms of how difficult it is to prove slander and libel. But I don't think your description is quite accurate. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. > The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected. IIUC the truth is a perfect defense in most states, but in some states maliciously stated truths (insults, more or less) can be defamatory. For example, see Johnson v Johnson in Rhode Island, where one Clifford Johnson was required to pay compensatory damages for (more or less accurately) calling his ex-wife a "[redacted] whore" in public. (He was also initially ordered to pay punitive damages, but that was reversed on appeal.) > If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected. I don't think this is the case in most states. If you say something with reckless disregard for the truth, it can be defamatory. > If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected. I think this is typically only true of defaming public figures.
zimpenfish 3y ago
Fixed that: "That should not [need to] be a criminal offence." Much like many other things. But, alas, we do not yet live in a world where people treat each other with even the simplest basic respect and we have to force the issue via laws.
- bjourne 3y ago
  I'll bite. Why does deadnaming have to be a criminal offence?
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    I think it depends on where (or even if) you draw the line on free speech when it comes to verbal harassment. Here's a quick test. Let's say Bob goes for a walk, but Bob's neighbor, John, is a complete dick and whenever Bob leaves his house to go for a walk, John follows him and just hurls non-stop insults at Bob. Should John's behavior be illegal? You could argue that as long as he's not trespassing anywhere, and he has the right to free speech, then John should be legally allowed to do this. In that case, it makes no sense to make deadnaming a criminal offense. There's no discussion to be had, as we've decided that asshole-ish speech is not illegal. If you say no, it's verbal harassment, and should be illegal, then you're saying free speech does have limits, and we just gotta decide if deadnaming is bad enough to be illegal.
    - zirgs 3y ago
      This kind of behaviour would most likely be prosecuted as harassment/stalking instead of hate speech/libel. So unless you follow someone around and harass them - just saying someone's so-called "deadname" shouldn't be illegal.
    - bjourne 3y ago
      John's behavior already is illegal in most Western jurisdictions. Your example does not demonstrate why deadnaming in particular needs to be a criminal offense.
- concordDance 3y ago
bluescrn 3y ago
At this point, there's lots of books and CDs out there with 'deadnames' on the cover, and movies and games with them in the credits. "Who directed 'The Matrix'?" probably shouldn't be a controversial question, let alone one with potential answers that are considered offensive or even illegal.
- psychoslave 3y ago
  I guess the idea is to provide some shields to people making a transition, as they could suffer ostrisation or threats from people who have animosity against transgender. Not everyone is a world famous artist that certainly can hire a whole team of body guard h24 all year around if they feel like it's appropriate. I'm not aware of the the law in question. It seems strange to me to target specifically naming the person with this or that name, rather than cover the case in a more generic way like creating threats on someone's life or social integrity through public release of intimate information.
- wredue 3y ago
  Deadnaming is typically done to be a cunt, which is a whole lot different than published works not having your new name on it. Yours is not a remotely apt comparison of the situations.

That should not be a criminal offence.

by zirgs 3y ago

That should not be a criminal offence.

gdprrrr 3y ago

Insulting is already a criminal offence, so it makes sense.

indigo945 3y ago

Intentionally insulting someone already is a crime under German law, so the only real question is why deadnaming is not already covered? And these kinds of laws also exist in more extreme "free-speech" countries like the United States (where the guarantee of free speech doesn't cover, for example, libel).

Chris2048 3y ago
libel and "insulting someone" in the sense of using slurs of defamatory remarks aren't obviously the same thing as referring to them by a previous name. I'd be very surprised if the German law (if actually policed) expands to anything an individual might be insulted by, especially if the offense is one of self image.
Veserv 3y ago
Not to say that the US is a country of unrestricted free speech, but the standard of libel/slander is extremely strict in the US relative to most other countries. You must make intentionally untrue statements with the intent to harm that causes harm. The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected. If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected. If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected. If no harm occurred, even if you tried to cause harm, you are protected. The standard is extremely hard to reach, possibly even too hard, and it is clearly qualitatively different than most other countries.
- less_less 3y ago
  I agree that the US is different from most countries in terms of how difficult it is to prove slander and libel. But I don't think your description is quite accurate. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. > The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected. IIUC the truth is a perfect defense in most states, but in some states maliciously stated truths (insults, more or less) can be defamatory. For example, see Johnson v Johnson in Rhode Island, where one Clifford Johnson was required to pay compensatory damages for (more or less accurately) calling his ex-wife a "[redacted] whore" in public. (He was also initially ordered to pay punitive damages, but that was reversed on appeal.) > If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected. I don't think this is the case in most states. If you say something with reckless disregard for the truth, it can be defamatory. > If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected. I think this is typically only true of defaming public figures.

zimpenfish 3y ago

Fixed that: "That should not [need to] be a criminal offence." Much like many other things. But, alas, we do not yet live in a world where people treat each other with even the simplest basic respect and we have to force the issue via laws.

bjourne 3y ago
I'll bite. Why does deadnaming have to be a criminal offence?
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  I think it depends on where (or even if) you draw the line on free speech when it comes to verbal harassment. Here's a quick test. Let's say Bob goes for a walk, but Bob's neighbor, John, is a complete dick and whenever Bob leaves his house to go for a walk, John follows him and just hurls non-stop insults at Bob. Should John's behavior be illegal? You could argue that as long as he's not trespassing anywhere, and he has the right to free speech, then John should be legally allowed to do this. In that case, it makes no sense to make deadnaming a criminal offense. There's no discussion to be had, as we've decided that asshole-ish speech is not illegal. If you say no, it's verbal harassment, and should be illegal, then you're saying free speech does have limits, and we just gotta decide if deadnaming is bad enough to be illegal.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    This kind of behaviour would most likely be prosecuted as harassment/stalking instead of hate speech/libel. So unless you follow someone around and harass them - just saying someone's so-called "deadname" shouldn't be illegal.
  - bjourne 3y ago
    John's behavior already is illegal in most Western jurisdictions. Your example does not demonstrate why deadnaming in particular needs to be a criminal offense.
concordDance 3y ago

bluescrn 3y ago

At this point, there's lots of books and CDs out there with 'deadnames' on the cover, and movies and games with them in the credits. "Who directed 'The Matrix'?" probably shouldn't be a controversial question, let alone one with potential answers that are considered offensive or even illegal.

psychoslave 3y ago
I guess the idea is to provide some shields to people making a transition, as they could suffer ostrisation or threats from people who have animosity against transgender. Not everyone is a world famous artist that certainly can hire a whole team of body guard h24 all year around if they feel like it's appropriate. I'm not aware of the the law in question. It seems strange to me to target specifically naming the person with this or that name, rather than cover the case in a more generic way like creating threats on someone's life or social integrity through public release of intimate information.
wredue 3y ago
Deadnaming is typically done to be a cunt, which is a whole lot different than published works not having your new name on it. Yours is not a remotely apt comparison of the situations.