4 ms·

In your examples, you readily equivocate civil and criminal law. The punishments and standards of evidence differ quite a bit. You also reference US cases that

by chroma 11y ago

In your examples, you readily equivocate civil and criminal law. The punishments and standards of evidence differ quite a bit. You also reference US cases that most free speech advocates (including the ACLU) disagree with. Reams could be written teasing out details, but I'll skip over that and get to the core of my disagreement. I really dislike framing in terms of "freedom of speech." Many of the first lions of free speech: John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill... they framed it in terms of freedom of hearing. By silencing someone, you limit potential audiences and their right to hear. In this original framing, the rights of these listeners are crucial, not just those of the speaker. Yes, Sturgeon's law applies. Most speech is crap. But let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they should read or hear. Don't give a government body that power. And honestly, is there any government body you would be willing to grant that power? The power of deciding what you could read or hear? Considering their typical level of competence, can you honestly say you'd be happy with your government being a filter for your senses? Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? Maybe it's my American upbringing, but the concept seems absurd to me. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? What the hell? Edit: I'm not sure how, but many readers seem to have misconstrued my comment as condoning threats. That is not the case. Everyone here agrees that threats to one's well-being are criminal and wrong. The law we are discussing restricts the exchange of ideas, albeit potentially crudely-formed ones. Let's not attack straw men.

vacri 11y ago
> Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? I guess when people live in such fear from online bullying that they have to move house because of the rape and death threats they're receiving, it's a little more than "text typed on a keyboard". It's not your American upbringing, it's your framing of the problem.
- chroma 11y ago
  It really should go without saying, but rape and death threats are crimes. Nobody is saying they aren't. New Zealand's new law isn't about criminalizing such (already illegal) threats. It's about making non-threats crimes. Under this law, half of the comments in this thread could be interpreted as illegal. Hell, I can't think of a comedian that couldn't be charged under this law. That's what I'm up-in-arms about.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats fall under that umbrella. You say 'let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they want to hear', but that is exactly the course of action of this legislation. It's not a proactive government censorship stopping any abuse from happening, but a post-facto avenue to pursue for readers and listeners who do feel abused. There is no 'right to hear' being removed here.
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    That's very hyperbolic. The law is about threats and abuse - and is actually fairly specific as to what that entails. No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. If they were then boom - if this is in NZ there is now a law that will get you locked up.
    - chroma 11y ago
      > No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. "If you have something to say, here's what you do: You write it down on a piece of paper, you go out in the lobby, and then you go home and you kill yourself." — Louis C.K. [1] I and many others found Louis CK's performance hilarious, but what's stopping him from being locked up the next time he performs in New Zealand? It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence. 1. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became-the-darkest-funniest-comedian-in-america-20111212 http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became...
      - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
        What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's what the law is there to prevent.
- x0054 11y ago
  All of the examples you and many others in this thread are giving are already illegal, under currently existing laws, in most, if not all countries. Threatening people with violence, encouraging others to commit violence against other people, actually coming over and stalking people. All of those things are crimes already. There is no need to make another law that makes it illegal to do something that is already highly illegal.
EliRivers 11y ago
Living in fear is soul destroying. It colours everything you do, everything you think. Every knock at the door provokes a horrible fear reaction. You can't think straight. You plan your life around your fear to an extent that, if it was alcohol or drugs, you'd be recognised as a serious addict and people would try to get you medical intervention. Living in fear destroys lives. And for what? So some idiot sack of shit can feel like a big man for scaring people? Why exactly should that be permitted?
pjc50 11y ago
Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? a) This can be extremely deadly. Enough hate speech can lead to real violence. Europe knows this from horrible experience. A modern example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... b) Don't pretend that America doesn't have free speech restrictions in the legal system. The most egregious example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws , but there are also plenty of national security related ones. Try sending some death threats to the President and see what happens. c) We really need to distinguish between saying things to people which a third party doesn't want discussed (the freedom of hearing case) and saying things to someone which that person doesn't want to hear. I don't think you can invoke Mill to give you unlimited freedom to send death and rape threats to strangers on the internet.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > saying things to someone which that person doesn't want to hear. You know you can put fingers in your ears, right?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    This is the "if you didn't want to get abuse from white people you should have sat at the back of the bus" / "you should have known that being a prominent woman on twitter would get you daily rape threats" argument. As others are saying, it's not costless, in fact its quite damaging to the psyche. Because you can't know, until communication starts, whether it's going to be vicious. And you can't walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time. Some internet services get this, but it's awfully easy for people to generate new accounts to route abuse through. We could do well to develop anti-abuse technology in the same mode as anti-spam.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      > And you can't walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time. I can only assume you have not talked with antivaxxers, climate change deniers or people taking their religion too seriously. Whether insult hurts or not is your choice. If you have such weak control over your inner world - learn to not give a fuck. not that hard.
Tomte 11y ago
"Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard?" Yes! Of course! Your line of argument is exactly like "I didn't kill him. I just moved my hands which happened to hold a knife which happened to travel through his chest." Outcome matters. Intent matters. Deconstructing real actions until some supposedly bizarre conclusion is reached does not matter.

by chroma 11y ago

vacri 11y ago

> Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? I guess when people live in such fear from online bullying that they have to move house because of the rape and death threats they're receiving, it's a little more than "text typed on a keyboard". It's not your American upbringing, it's your framing of the problem.

chroma 11y ago
It really should go without saying, but rape and death threats are crimes. Nobody is saying they aren't. New Zealand's new law isn't about criminalizing such (already illegal) threats. It's about making non-threats crimes. Under this law, half of the comments in this thread could be interpreted as illegal. Hell, I can't think of a comedian that couldn't be charged under this law. That's what I'm up-in-arms about.
- vacri 11y ago
  Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats fall under that umbrella. You say 'let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they want to hear', but that is exactly the course of action of this legislation. It's not a proactive government censorship stopping any abuse from happening, but a post-facto avenue to pursue for readers and listeners who do feel abused. There is no 'right to hear' being removed here.
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  That's very hyperbolic. The law is about threats and abuse - and is actually fairly specific as to what that entails. No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. If they were then boom - if this is in NZ there is now a law that will get you locked up.
  - chroma 11y ago
    > No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. "If you have something to say, here's what you do: You write it down on a piece of paper, you go out in the lobby, and then you go home and you kill yourself." — Louis C.K. [1] I and many others found Louis CK's performance hilarious, but what's stopping him from being locked up the next time he performs in New Zealand? It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence. 1. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became-the-darkest-funniest-comedian-in-america-20111212 http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became...
    - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
      What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's what the law is there to prevent.
x0054 11y ago
All of the examples you and many others in this thread are giving are already illegal, under currently existing laws, in most, if not all countries. Threatening people with violence, encouraging others to commit violence against other people, actually coming over and stalking people. All of those things are crimes already. There is no need to make another law that makes it illegal to do something that is already highly illegal.

EliRivers 11y ago

Living in fear is soul destroying. It colours everything you do, everything you think. Every knock at the door provokes a horrible fear reaction. You can't think straight. You plan your life around your fear to an extent that, if it was alcohol or drugs, you'd be recognised as a serious addict and people would try to get you medical intervention. Living in fear destroys lives. And for what? So some idiot sack of shit can feel like a big man for scaring people? Why exactly should that be permitted?

pjc50 11y ago

Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? a) This can be extremely deadly. Enough hate speech can lead to real violence. Europe knows this from horrible experience. A modern example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib... b) Don't pretend that America doesn't have free speech restrictions in the legal system. The most egregious example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws , but there are also plenty of national security related ones. Try sending some death threats to the President and see what happens. c) We really need to distinguish between saying things to people which a third party doesn't want discussed (the freedom of hearing case) and saying things to someone which that person doesn't want to hear. I don't think you can invoke Mill to give you unlimited freedom to send death and rape threats to strangers on the internet.

venomsnake 11y ago
> saying things to someone which that person doesn't want to hear. You know you can put fingers in your ears, right?
- pjc50 11y ago
  This is the "if you didn't want to get abuse from white people you should have sat at the back of the bus" / "you should have known that being a prominent woman on twitter would get you daily rape threats" argument. As others are saying, it's not costless, in fact its quite damaging to the psyche. Because you can't know, until communication starts, whether it's going to be vicious. And you can't walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time. Some internet services get this, but it's awfully easy for people to generate new accounts to route abuse through. We could do well to develop anti-abuse technology in the same mode as anti-spam.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    > And you can't walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time. I can only assume you have not talked with antivaxxers, climate change deniers or people taking their religion too seriously. Whether insult hurts or not is your choice. If you have such weak control over your inner world - learn to not give a fuck. not that hard.

Tomte 11y ago

"Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard?" Yes! Of course! Your line of argument is exactly like "I didn't kill him. I just moved my hands which happened to hold a knife which happened to travel through his chest." Outcome matters. Intent matters. Deconstructing real actions until some supposedly bizarre conclusion is reached does not matter.