5 ms·

You're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally an

You're not even voicing an opinion. You're "just asking questions." Online hate speech isn't just words on a screen; it can seriously mess people up mentally and emotionally. That's why we've got laws like the Network Enforcement Act in Germany and the EU's Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online. These aren't for show – they're there because hate speech can lead to real-world violence and discrimination. If you're so curious, look up the studies on how online harassment affects mental health. But let's be real, you're probably not interested in facts, just in stirring up trouble. Well, I'm not biting. The laws are there, the research is there, and people's lived experiences are there. Deal with it.

_heimdall 2y ago
I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.
- BoredPositron 2y ago
  Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread. Here’s a primer: - The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks. - There was a mass murder in the last weeks. - During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt. - This individual was apprehended. - 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and launched a DDoS attack against the police website. - In response, the UK police blocked international IPs to mitigate this attack. The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. This is the situation we’re discussing. Your stance may be that you believe the woman had the right to lie and incite violence, but that still violates the specific law we're addressing, and my initial comment was directed at this particular issue, this law. You might not agree with the law and may argue that saying "Kill all illegal immigrants." or "Kill this specific immigrant." is acceptable online or even offline. While Elon might be on board with that perspective, I’m glad the governing bodies of the UK and EU are not. It's the libertè thing again...
  - 23B1 2y ago
    The "clear cut" of the law you cited is anything but. The definition of hatred, for example, is not only insufficient for a just law, but can be – and is – reasonably stretched to encompass anything the current regime doesn't like.
    - BoredPositron 2y ago
      That's why there is a division of powers but I am not gonna try to explain that to a person who tries to haggle about the meaning of words while calling a freshly elected democratic government a regime. That would just be silly. lmao
      - 23B1 2y ago
        A freshly elected democratic government can still be called a regime. Very normal use of the word.
        BoredPositron 2y ago
        Sure thing it's just weird asf.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hate speech laws in the UK have similar issues. The law is clear in defining what power it is granting to authorities and what classifications can be used to deem speech illegal. It is very unclear on how it will be decided that speech has crossed that line. Functionally what this means is that judges are given the sole authority to decide when speech crosses the line and citizens have no way of knowing what that determination will be. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...

_heimdall 2y ago

I understand that we have different opinions on the risk of speech, there's nothing wrong with that. But how do you see my comments here as not voicing an opinion? I pretty clearly raised my view that speech itself can't cause harm and shouldn't be regulated, though that actions taken by people should be.

BoredPositron 2y ago
Okay, you are clearly missing the context of what we’re discussing in this thread. Here’s a primer: - The UK has experienced racial riots over the past few weeks. - There was a mass murder in the last weeks. - During these racial riots, someone "identified" an immigrant as the attacker, which turned out to be misinformation and incited a manhunt. - This individual was apprehended. - 4chan went full "fr33d0m" and launched a DDoS attack against the police website. - In response, the UK police blocked international IPs to mitigate this attack. The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. This is the situation we’re discussing. Your stance may be that you believe the woman had the right to lie and incite violence, but that still violates the specific law we're addressing, and my initial comment was directed at this particular issue, this law. You might not agree with the law and may argue that saying "Kill all illegal immigrants." or "Kill this specific immigrant." is acceptable online or even offline. While Elon might be on board with that perspective, I’m glad the governing bodies of the UK and EU are not. It's the libertè thing again...
- 23B1 2y ago
  The "clear cut" of the law you cited is anything but. The definition of hatred, for example, is not only insufficient for a just law, but can be – and is – reasonably stretched to encompass anything the current regime doesn't like.
  - BoredPositron 2y ago
    That's why there is a division of powers but I am not gonna try to explain that to a person who tries to haggle about the meaning of words while calling a freshly elected democratic government a regime. That would just be silly. lmao
    - 23B1 2y ago
      A freshly elected democratic government can still be called a regime. Very normal use of the word.
      - BoredPositron 2y ago
        Sure thing it's just weird asf.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > The law is clear-cut: it defines illegal hate speech as public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. The law isn't clear though. The Verge had a write up [1] on Section 127 a couple years ago that does a good job of pointing out where that specific law is vague. Other hate speech laws in the UK have similar issues. The law is clear in defining what power it is granting to authorities and what classifications can be used to deem speech illegal. It is very unclear on how it will be decided that speech has crossed that line. Functionally what this means is that judges are given the sole authority to decide when speech crosses the line and citizens have no way of knowing what that determination will be. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offensive-tweet-prosecution-section-127-2003-communications-act https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/7/22912054/uk-grossly-offens...